දක්ෂතාවයේ විභවය අලෙවිකරණයෙන් රැකගැනීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය

තරගය පැවැත්වෙන අතරතුර අපගේ බලාපොරොතුතුව වූයේ ද කිංස්වුඩ් ජයග්‍ර‍හනයකි. නමුත් තරගයෙන් අනතුරුව ප්‍රකෘති දිවියට පැමිණිය යුතු නිසා මෙම සටහන “කිංස්වුඩ් මැටර්ස්” වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කොට ඇත.

 

කිංස්වුඩ් විදුහලේ කීර්ති නාමයත් ඔහුගේ හැකියාවත් සිරස රූපවාහිනියේ සුපර් ෆයිටර් නරඹන සැම ඇතුලු අනෙක් ලංකාවාසී සැම අතර බැබලවීමට හැකිවීම ගැන ලසිත් දසනායක බොක්සිං ක්‍රීඩක සොයුරා ගැන සතුටක් ඇතිවේ. එහි කිලෝග්‍රෑම් 52 බර පන්තියේ අනුශූරයා (හොදම පරාජිතයා) ලෙස ඔහු ස්ටුඩියෝ එකක් තුල, කෙටි පණිවිඩ ද, නදිනි ප්‍රේමදාස නැමැති සීසන් එකකට පමණක් හිට් වූ සුපර් ස්ටාර් ද ඇතුලු “මීඩියා වීර” විශේෂඥ මත අතරින් ද ගොස් මෙම අනුශූරතාවය දිනා ගැනීම ද වැදගත් වේ. එය වැදගත් වන්නේ වෙන හේතුවක් නිසා නොව, ලසිත් අනුශූරයා වූයේ ද, අනෙක් අය එස්.එම්.එස් ඡන්ද දැම්මේ ද බොක්සිං තරගයක මුවාවෙන් පැවැත්වූ මාධ්‍ය සංදර්ශනයකට වීම නිසාය. අපේ එදිනෙදා ජීවිතය මෙවැනි සංදර්ශන මාලාවක අන්තර් වියමනක් ද වන නිසා මෙහිදී ලසිත් ට වැරැද්දක් පැටවීමක් වන්නේ නැත. අනෙක් අතට, තම දක්ෂතාවය උරගා බැලීමට ලැබුනු අවස්ථාවක් උපරිමයට යොදා ගැනීම තුලින් ලසිත් ජයග්‍රහනයක්ම ලැබුවා යැයි තර්ක කිරීමට ද හැක.

සිරස බොක්සිං තරග‍යේ අනුශූරයා වූ ලසිත් කිංස්වුඩ් විදුහලේ දී පිලිගැනුනේ තූර්ය වාදක කණ්ඩායමේ නාදය ද අතරිනි. ඉහල පාලන තන්ත්‍රය ඉතා නිහතමානීව ප්‍රධාන ගේට්ටුව අසලටම පැමිණ ඔහුව පිලිගත්හ. විශේෂ උත්සවයක් ද පැවැත්වුනු අතර, කිංස්වුඩ් බොක්සිං ෆේස්බුක් පේජ් එක එහිදී ලසිත් ව හැදින්වූයේ උත්සවයේ “ප්‍රධාන අමුත්තා” වශයෙනි. මෙම “ප්‍රධාන අමුත්තා” ගමන් කරන මාර්ගය දෙපස අත්පොලොසන් දෙමින් කණිෂ්ඨ ශිෂ්‍යයෝ රදවා තිබුණි. මේ හා සමාන පිලිගැනීමක් ජයමාල් විතානගේ යටතේ තරග කළ කිංස්වුඩ් රගර් කණ්ඩායමට 2001 වසරේදී ලැබුණි. එම කණ්ඩායම පෑ වික්‍රමය නම් “බී” කොටසින් තරග කර ජනාධිපති කුසලානය කිංස්වුඩ් ඉතිහාසයේ මුල් වරට දිනා ගැනීමයි. තූර්යවැයුමක් නොතිබුණු නමුත් ප්‍රධාන ශාලාවේදී උත්සවශ්‍රීයෙන් පිලිගැනීමක් සිදුවිනි.

1991 වසරේදී ද මේ හා සමාන පිලිගැනීමක් සිදුවුනි. ඒ දකුණු ආසියාතික ක්‍රීඩා උළෙලේ බර ඉසිලීමට ලෝකඩ පදක්කමක් දිනූ (කිංස්වුඩ් විදුහලට කේවල තරග ඉසව්වකදී ඉහලම ගෞරවය ගෙනදුන් බවට තර්ක කල හැකි) අසේල විජේවික්‍රම ක්‍රීඩකයා පිලිගැනීම පිණිසයි. අසේලගේ ජයග්‍රහනය කලාපයේ රටවල් හතක ක්‍රීඩකයින් සමග වන අතර, 2001 දී රගර් කණ්ඩායම එම වසරේ හොදම පාසල් රගර් කණ්ඩායම් අට සමග “බී” කාණ්ඩයෙන් පැමිණ තරග කලේය. අද, 2014 දී ලසිත් සොයුරා සිරස රූපවාහිනී බොක්සිං තරගයේ අනුශූරයා වී යථෝක්ත අවස්ථා හා සමාන ම පිලිගැනීමකින් පිදුම් ලබයි. මෙහිදී ඉහත අවස්ථා තුන හරහා පැහැදිලි වෙන කරුණු දෙකක් තිබේ. එකක් නම්, එක්කෝ මෙම වසර විසිතුනක කාලරාමුව හරහා කිංස්වුඩ් විදුහල සාපේක්ෂව වඩා “ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී” පාසලක් වී ඇති බවයි. අන්තර්ජාතික ශූරයාගේ මල්මාලය ම ජනප්‍රියවාදී ටෙලිවිෂන් තරගයේ අනුශූරයාටද වෙන්කර ඇති බවයි (මෙය ලසිත්ගේ ජයග්‍රහණය ගැන විමසුමක් නොවන බව නැවත උච්චාරනය කලයුතුයි). එය එසේ නොවේ නම්, මෙම අවස්ථා තුනෙන් ගම්‍ය කරගත හැකි තවත් කරුනක් ලෙසට තර්ක කල හැක්කේ කිංස්වුඩ් විදුහලේ “විශිෂ්ටත්වය” මැනීමේ කෝදුවේ මෘදුකාංග ගෙවීගොස් ඇති බවකි. නැත්නම්, මාධ්‍ය විසින් මවනු ලබන විජ්ජා ජ‍ාලයේ ෆැන්ටසිකරණය තුල විද්‍යාලය ද අතරමං වී ඇත් ද?

Lasith's friends and fans congratulating him after his achievement.

Lasith’s friends and fans congratulating him after his achievement.

අපට අසන්නට ඇති අදාලම ප්‍රශ්ණය වන්නේ මෙතැන් සිට ඕනෑම බාහිර හෝ අධ්‍යාපනික ක්‍රියාකාරකමකින් ජාතික මට්ටමේ අනුශූරතාවක් හෝ ඉන් ඉහල ස්ථානයක් ලබාගත් අයෙකුට මෙවැනිම පිලිගැනීමක් — බෙර ගසා, මල්මාල දමා, උත්සවයක් තබා — කරනවාද යන්නයි. නැතිනම්, මෙම පිලිගැනීම මේ ආකාරයෙන් සිදුවූයේ ලසිත් තරග කලේ රූපවාහිනී මාධ්‍යයක් මෙහෙය වූ සන්දර්ශනාත්මක බොක්සිං වළල්ලක වීම නිසාද? මෙම ප්‍රශ්ණයට පිලිතුර “ඔව්” යන්න නම් අපි අපගේ ප්‍රමුඛතාවයන් හා වටිනාකම් ගැන අප විසින්ම කරගත යුතු ප්‍රශ්ණාවලියක ආරම්භය ද එයම වේ. එය පෞද්ගලික වූ ද, ආචාර ධර්මීය වූද ප්‍රශ්ණ කිරීමකි. එය ලසිත්ගේ මට්ටමින් කෙරෙන්නේ නම් “නාමික” බොක්සිං තරගයකට තම ශක්තිය හා ආත්මය වමාරමින්, මාධ්‍ය විසින් තමාට එන්නත් කරනු ලැබූ ලංසුවකට අලෙවි වෙමින් තමා ලබන “ජනප්‍රියතාවය” කොතරම් තම හෘදසාක්ෂිය හා අනුරූප වෙනවාද යන්න විවාදයට බදුන් කල යුතුය. මෙම තරගයට ඇතුලුවීමෙන් ම ලසිත් මෙම ප්‍රශ්ණය නිරාකරනය කර දී තිබේ. එසේ නැතිනම් එවැනි ප්‍රශ්ණ කිරීමක් අවශ්‍ය නැතැයි ද, වෘත්තීය ක්‍රීඩකයින් පවා අලෙවිකරණය වන බැවින් මේ නැගී එන ක්‍රීඩකයා පරිභෝජන ජාලයකට මෙසේ ඇතුලත් කිරීමේ වරදක් නැතැයි ද සිතන්නෝ සිටිය හැක.

වඩා වැදගත් ආත්මකථනය කරගත යුත්තේ විද්‍යාලයයි. ඒ, අප අගයන සහ ඇගයුම් ලෙස අපේම සොයුරන් හා බෙදා හදා ගෙන ආත්මගත කරගතයුතු වටිනාකම් හා හර පද්ධතීන් සම්බන්දවයි. අපේ එදිනෙදා වැඩකටයුතු ඉහත කී පරිභෝජනවාදී ජාලයක නැවත නැවත වෙලෙමින් පවතින තත්වයකදී එම තත්වයන් හදුනාගැනීමටත්, ඒ හා ඵලදායී ගනුදෙනුවක නියැලීමට ශිෂ්‍යයා යොමුකරවීමත් විද්‍යාලයක වගකීමයි. අපගේ උනන්දුව වියයුත්තේ පරිභෝජනවාදයෙන් බඩජාරී වුනු මාධ්‍ය භාවිතයකින් සුරුවම් කෙරෙන “සුපිරි තරු” බිහිකර ගැනීමකට වඩා විචාරශීලී හා තීක්ෂන ලෙස මොලය‍ට තට්ටු කර වැ‍ඩක් කල හැකි “පොලව දෙසට නැමුනු” සිසු කැලක් වඩා ගැනීමය. එය ලසිත් වැනි විභවයක් ඇති ක්‍රීඩකයින්ට ද වඩා “ක්‍රීඩාශීලී” පෞරුෂයක් ඇතිකර ගැනීමට ඌනපූර්නයක් සපයනු ඇත. “සුපර් ස්ටාර්” මානසිකත්වයකින් බාල්දු කෙරුනු රටක අවිචාරශීලීව ඒ දෙසටම අපද යනවා නම් ඒ ගැන වඩා වැදගත් ස්වයං-විවේචනයක් අවශ්‍ය වේ. විද්‍යලයේ ඉතිහාසය හා බැදී පවතින අල්පේච්ඡ බව හා නිහතමානී ගුණාංග එවැනි විවේචනයක “අදාලතාවය” ගැන අපට බල කරයි.

අසේල විජේවික්‍රම උපහාරයට පසු අවුරුද්දේ, 1993 දී, අයි.එන් හේවාවසම් “මීහරකා” නම් සිනමා නිර්මාණයක් මුදා හරියි. ලින්ටන් සේමගේ හා ස්වර්ණා මල්ලවආරච්චි රංග නිරූපණය කරන එය මානසික වශයෙන් නොවැඩුනු, පිටිසර ගැමි කොල්ලෙක් වටා ගෙතුනකි. කිසිදු අධ්‍යාපනයක් නොලත් ඔහු මීහරක් බලාගෙන ජීවිකාව ගෙන යයි. නගරයේ සිට එන බස් රියදුරෙකු හා ගෝලයෙකු මොහුගෙ “නොදන්නාභාවය” හරහා අඩුවෙන් මුදල් ගෙවා මී කිරි මිලදී ගනී. කොල්ලා සතුටු කිරීම‍ට සිගරට්, වැල පත්තර ආදිය ද සපයයි. මෙම “සූරාකෑම” දිගටම සිදුවෙන අතර තමාට සිදුවන ආර්ථික හෝ ආධ්‍යාත්මික අහේනිය දැකීමට තරම් විඥානයක් මීහරක් බලන කොල්ලාට නැත. චිත්‍රපටය අවසානයේ දී කොල්ලා සියදිවි නසාගැනෙන අවස්ථාවක් වේ. චිත්‍රපටය අවසන් වන්නේ බස් රථය නැවත ගමට එන දර්ශනයකිනි. මීකිරි විකිණීමට වෙනත් කොල්ලෙක් බස් රියදුරා හා ගෝලයා සොයාගත් බවක් ප්‍රකාශ වේ. වැල පත්තරය දැන් ඔහුගේ සන්තෝසම බවට පත්වේ. “සුපර් ස්ටාර්” සංස්කෘතියේ කෙටි ඉතිහාසය විමසා බැලීමේදී බස් ගෝලයින් දෙදෙනා හා සිරස “ස්ටාර් මේනියාවේ” වෙනසක් නැත්තේය. සිගරට් එක, පත්තරය වෙනුවට මුදල්, ත්‍යාග හා “නොමිලේ ගුවන්ගත වීමේ අවස්ථාවක්” මෙන්ම ප්‍රචාරනයක් ද ලබා දෙනු ලැබේ. ඔබේ “ජනප්‍රියතාවයේ මිනිත්තු පහලොව” ඒ හරහා ලැබෙනු ඇත. අපගේ අධ්‍යාපනයේ හරය විය යුත්තේ මෙම අරාජිකත්වය විනිවිද යාම‍ට නිර්මාණාත්මක ක්‍රමවේදයන් ගවේෂණය කිරීමයි. පත්තරයට, සිගරට් එකට අපගේ හැකියාව හෝ මී කිරි හට්ටිය හෝ විකුණා දැමීම නොවේ.

Kingswood Week: A Prototype for a Meditation of “Meaningful Change” and “Change by Accident”

Kingswood-College-Kandy-CrestChange, says the philosopher, is inevitable. Change, therefore, must happen as much as it should be accepted. If the traditions and spirit of a community or a group of people gets forgotten after the lapse of years, one must accept that: that is a result of change. Other times, change is also forced into a system. This can be seen when new properties are introduced to a process that is being carried out in a certain way for a number of years. When one is to artificially introduce a change there is a merit in consulting the established practice; or, in other words, in checking the “agreement” of the intended change with the “tradition”. There are also two forms of “change”: meaningful change, where one is consciously aware of the change one is making, the reasons of making that change and as to why that change is necessary; and change by accident, largely caused by ignorance and ignominy. The first type of “change”, we believe, is more productive.

When the Kingswood Week was initiated over a century ago, there was no “Kingswood Sunday”. Blaze notes that the “Sunday” was attached to the Week’s programme several years later; when, the Administration found out that some of the Boys had the practice of holding a service at the Methodist Church on the Sunday of the Kingswood Week. In the initial years, the Sunday had been at the end of the Week, with an all-ethnic mass and service at the Methodist Church. Records and accounts of these are found under a separate chapter in L.E Blaze’s KFE: The Story of Kingswood.

With time, the Kingswood Week agenda changes. The Kingswood Sunday comes to the beginning of the week — maybe, with the feeling that religious observances (as per, Ceylonese / Lankan custom) come at the beginning of a festive occasion. Then, in Post-Independence times, the Sunday’s programme incorporates religious programmes at the Maligawa, the Meera Makkam Mosque and the Methodist Church, thus symbolizing the religious plurality of the school, within the meaning of being an independent nation. This, too, is a meaningful change. The Kingswood Week, from the earliest days, was the week in which Kingswood held its sports, prize giving, and day of fellowship. This week begins with the welcoming of “the guest” of the Week; a distinguished person who, mostly, has a close historical connection with the school.

In recent years, the sports meet was removed from the Kingswood Week. This is as per the renewed regulations of the Ministry of Education, where all schools are expected to hold their sports in a particular term of the year. Kingswood had abided by this rule without protest and that “change”, too, can be logically rationalized (and let us hope the Ministry doesn’t bring about further rules regarding prize givings and recitation of Prologues etc). A Colours Eve was introduced in the late 1980s: once again, a logical move, as Kingswood’s sports had gained yards in the 1970s and 1980s.

As we have shown through this blog space on at least two occasions in the past, a “change” we fail to fathom is the inclusion of a “Kala Ulela” and a “Scouts Day” to the Kingswood Week. This was an initiative taken 3-4 years back, during the tail-end of Principal Chandrasekara’s tenure. What reasons and what logic prompted these inclusions remain mysterious. We have used this blog space to discuss this “abnormality” in detail. We will not repeat ourselves here. It is sufficient to say that these inclusions cannot be rationalized and does not agree with the Week’s agenda.

During the Prize giving last week, July 2014, we saw a red colour cloth flex stretched across the cyclorama of the stage. It announced: “Annual Prize Giving, 2014″. In my 26 year association with the school, I do not remember of such a banner being drawn across the prize stage to indicate what event we were partaking in. Logically speaking, if those present there did not know it was indeed the prize giving, they wouldn’t be there in the first place. A sign always has to serve a purpose. A sign has to be a communication; not a decoration.

According to one of our co-blog team members, the first Senior Prefect of (at least) our generation to have rounded up the prize giving’s vote of thanks with a “KFE!” is Isuru Sirinimal (Senior Prefect 2000). I have personal disagreements with that, but my colleague’s memory is more reliable than mine for its depository of facts; but, over the past decade and a half, it has been quite customary for the vote of thanks to be rounded up with that customary salute. But, we see in recent years that every Kingswood boy who has a microphone under his nose make it his style to parrot “KFE!” after whatever it is he is doing there.

Thus, we hear “KFE” being used instead of a full stop at the end of a Prefects’ Day forum, a Colours Eve etc, as much as we hear it at the end of individual speeches, too. More relevant to our topic here, the Prologue Reciter, too, has cultivated the style of saying “KFE!” at the end of the traditional recital. This has been seen over a few years now (with exceptions), including this year’s Prologue Reciter. The Prologue Reciter’s function is to deliver the Prologue as it is given to him; as composed. He is the vehicle through which the sentiments scribed in the Prologue are channeled — and that’s it; nothing more, nothing less.

All in all, it looks ludicrous and unaesthetic when each person who comes under the mic — as if on cue — blabs a “KFE!”. On the Prize giving day held a week ago, altogether 6 people used the mic, on 7 occasions (including the compere; and twice by the Senior Prefect). Of these 7 occasions, in 4 instances the item concluded with a “KFE / Kingswood For Ever!”. The Prologue reciter used it upfront and it was used by Dr. Mahinda Katugaha who proposed the vote of thanks (on behalf of the Old Boys). The Senior Prefect used it twice in the interval of 5 minutes — at the end of his vote of thanks and when he proposed “three hearty cheers” to the floor. We wouldn’t have been too surprised that evening had the chief guest, Minister SB Dissanayake, concluded with “KFE” too: it was surely catching up.

The tradition has been that, at the conclusion of the prize ceremony, the Senior Prefect proposes “three hearty cheers” to (1) the Chief Guest, (2) the Principal and Staff, and the (3) Old Boys and Well Wishers. At least in the last two years this traditional cheer has been warped with the third cheer being changed to “three hearty cheers for the Prefects’ Court and the Gentlemen of Kingswood”. Once again, the illogical nature of this statement fouls its application. Here we have the Senior Prefect (representing the Prefects, who, in turn, represent the Boys) proposing a cheer for the prefects and the boys. In the age of Facebook and selfies this makes some sense, but, in Kingswood’s so-called tradition of being “none for himself but all for the school”, this newly fangled line supersedes the Old Boys and well wishers of the school. And, then, why propose a separate “cheer” for the Prefects’ Court? Why get the school community to cheer the Prefects? The Prefects volunteer to take up some responsibilities for the school. It is a volunteered post. No one is obliged to cheer them for that.

The prize list at the prize giving, too, should be carefully re-assessed. Some of the traditional prizes which have been consistently awarded through the 1990s and 2000s have suddenly disappeared. Maybe, these disappearances have happened over the years, but, still, a careful revision of these prizes can restore some pride and dignity — and sustain a tradition — in what we do. Prizes come and go, depending on the donors. But, some of the traditional prizes need to have a consistency. For example, in the 1990s and 2000s, three shields were awarded at the end of the prize distribution: the Luterz, Crowther and Randles shields. While the Luterz shield was given (for inter-House learning), the other two had simply been erased. The Randles Shield, in particular, was a magnificent shield with a  majestic appearance. We only hope that it is still somewhere around.

Nowadays, another dangerous tendency among those related to school is to take this blog too seriously. This blog is seen by some of the staff and students as an “enemy” of the school. Our views are not read properly, thought about or measured for validity; but, are simply taken as arrows of enmity, because our style is not to mollycoddle. In society, the plurality of views is of the greatest value for development — and we write from that stance. One of our (guest) correspondents was even threatened with assault following a post he channeled to us, following the Big Match this year. Some narrow-minded teachers (possibly unread in the school or its past) rebuke us sometimes. Our views, at the end of the day, are simply summarized: Kingswood is/was our school; and therefore, of Kingswood we will discourse. If our views are even of an iota of meaning , feel free to take us a bit seriously. If not, carry on with the good life. After all, history is an interpretation; and it is a story written by the one who stands last.

End Where I Began: The De Lanerolle Silverware Returns to Randles Hill

The 10th Annual KM De Lanerolle Memorial Debate Competition conducted by the Past Debaters of Kingswood™ was concluded at the College Main Hall on the 28th of June. Kingswood College emerged trumps for 2014, in this month long competition, after a final inter-locking of wit with Kandy Girls’ High School. The Kingswood-Girls’ High School finale was a replay of the tournament’s inaugural final ten years ago, where these two schools met for a similar result. This was Kingswood’s first De Lanerolle triumph in seven years, and Girls’ High School’s first final in the same number of years.

A pre-semi final pose by the top four teams for 2014: Kingswood, Girls' High School, Good Shepherd Convent and Dharmaraja

A pre-semi final pose by the top four teams for 2014: Kingswood, Girls’ High School, Good Shepherd Convent and Dharmaraja

Kingswood’s victory, however, should not pale into insignificance their weaknesses, as some of us felt that the debate would not have been plain sailing for the home boys had their opponents been a bit more thorough with their homework. Kingswood, to do them justice, had a comprehensive four-part base in opposing the topic – whether “Religious Persecution in Sri Lanka can be controlled with the existing legal framework” – and mediated in a logically thought out argument process. Girls’ High School, however, seemed to lack an impressionable thesis upfront and were caught defending a ill-fortified bastion. Indeed, they were more eloquent in their delivery and persuasive in speech, but lacked conviction in their countering: a cardinal sin in debating.

Kingswood’s subsequent Facebook celebrations, however, do not even stress on the fact that their 4th Speaker – arguably the most crucial position of the debate – looked as if he was standing on a mound of sand all the time he spoke, and that their 2nd Speaker needs better clarity to do justice to the depository of facts and figures from which he belted out. The 3rd Speaker was in such a mighty hurry that he almost ran the risk of choking his own words, while the Leader’s summing up stressed on way too many secondary and redundant facts: which, on another day, may have caused the debate. In summary, Kingswood is not a foolproof unit and they have their shoes to shine before going cyber.

The 10th year of the competition was a food-for-thoughter for the organizers, as they were challenged on all ends by the vermin of ill-discipline to which several contesting teams had succumbed. Pressurizing the organizers to change debate dates, eleventh hour pulling outs, complains regarding panelists (after losing debates), the effrontery to challenge given verdicts were more frequent and annoying than in any of the past nine years. While a teacher accompanying a team, after losing a debate, claimed the topic was too partial, another teacher submitted a charge sheet of eight “complains” – three of them baseless, five of them her personal problems. Three teams that had earlier registered for the competition gave eleventh hour walkovers, while another team – one qualified for the 3rd Place play off – confirmed participation in the eleventh hour and pronounced a walkover with flirting distance to the twelfth. None of these thug tactics are appreciated and are condemned in the name of sportsmanship and civilization.

The winning Kingswood team [Gowthaman Nallaretnam, Bihan Viranga De Silva, Abdul Azeez (Leader) and Akmal Javvad]

The winning Kingswood team [Gowthaman Nallaretnam, Bihan Viranga De Silva, Abdul Azeez (Leader) and Akmal Javvad]

The glamour thus stolen, the tournament, yet, saw the blooming of several intense debates and a few other outstanding moments which will find ready space in our De Lanerolle scrap books. Good Shepherd Convent – who ultimately came third to take home the FAJ Utting Memorial Trophy – caused an upset by turning tables on St. Sylvester’s, and almost caused the plank-walking of Kingswood in the Semi Finals, which they narrowly lost 1-2. This was arguably Good Shepherd’s best De Lanerolle year, with two of their speakers making the top three in the individual prize list. Aysha Wazeer (Best Speaker – 3rd) and Rosemary Fernando (Best Speaker – 2nd) had just 0.75 marks between them. Dharmaraja made a comeback to Randles Hill after 9 years, taking part for the first time since 2005. The Rajans, who came Runners Up at the Lalitha Fernando Debate Competition at Mahamaya in January, fielded a vibrant set of debaters who stood up to impress. Their Fourth Speaker Janith Wickramasinghe showed much promise which we hope will blossom in the next few debates he will speak in.

Nushara Amarasekara (KGHS) won the VD Paulraj Memorial Prize for the Best Speaker for 2014, with a series of stellar performances leading up to the finals. She was also adjudicated the Best Fourth Speaker, being the first speaker in the competition’s history to bag the double.

The tournament also felt the absence of Gateway College, who had earlier won the series four years in a row and had carved for itself a niche of fans as one of the best teams of the recent past. The organizing committee, during the wrap up, acknowledged their own ignorance of the London examination schedules (which caused a clash between the debate dates and exams, forcing Gateway and CIS out): a grave error which they acknowledged would be borne in mind for the future.

The finals were honoured by Mr. Gihan Wijekoon, Kingswood’s Senior Prefect of 1988 – an enigmatic legend is the school’s circuits – and Mr. Delawer Shah, a one time whip crack in Kingswood debating and team leader in 1998. The Main Hall was flooded by an army of Girls’ High School girls, parents and teachers; as opposed to a sprinkling of support for the home team, which struck us as amusing. Kingswood also felicitated its long-serving teacher-in-charge of debating Mrs Jayantha Ranasinghe who was recently transferred in service, after sixteen years at Kingswood (twelve years with the team).

Kingswood’s win is their fourth overall De Lanerolle triumph and their first since 2007. They are joint-holders of the claim to have won the tournament most number of times, alongside Gateway College, who trumped in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Main Prizes:

The 1st Place (De Lanerolle Memorial Prize and Spencer Debate Shield): Kingswood.
The 2nd Place (The P.H. Nonis Memorial Prize): Kandy Girls’ High School.
The 3rd Place (The FAJ Utting Memorial Trophy): Good Shepherd Convent.
The Best Speaker (VD Paulraj Memorial Prize): Nushara Amarasekara (KGHS).

All of Us Remained Changed: A myriad of Professions, Weight Classes, Marriage Statuses and Some Protruding Bellies told the Stories of Years Apart.

by Shashika Bandara

I am writing this piece in appreciation of the event held on 14th June 2014 – reunion of 2005 class of Kingswood College; for a great job done by the organizers – for great memories provided by all that who attended. I also would like to pay homage to Deminthe Dahanayake’s father who suddenly passed away on the 16th of June, in the hope that bright memories prevail over the grief felt.

**************

“Death is but crossing the world, as friends do the seas; they live in one another still. For they must needs be present, that love and live in that which is omnipresent. In this divine glass, they see face to face; and their converse is free as well as pure. This is the comfort of friends, that though they may be said to die, yet their friendship and society are, in the best sense, ever present, because immortal” William Penn; Some Fruits of Solitude

Nostalgia: Definition — “A feeling of sadness mixed with pleasure and affection when you think of happy times in the past” – Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary.

Ten Years or more: I had memories suspended silently somewhere in my frontal lobe as I travelled, learned some and un-learned some in both academia and life. I grew cells on dishes, cut snippets of mice tails, learned some arts, swam in unknown lakes and met some wonderful people. Yet, on the eve of 14th of June 2014, as I met one childhood friend after the other something snapped – broke that silent suspension of memories – and crashed the flood gates.
Memory of a fight, a joke, a teacher being teased slowly revved up the cerebral engines. Sometimes it is not so much the joke itself, but the forgotten narrating style of a friend that brought joy – an art of stand-up comedy practiced in classrooms of growing teenagers; only hold meaning to those who were present – like a ghost key.

Batch 2005 letting their hair down

Batch 2005 letting their hair down

A myriad of professions, weight classes, marriage statuses and some protruding bellies told the stories of years apart. All of us remained changed, yet, somewhat unchanged.Inside the classrooms we were all clad in uniforms that marked our growth, going from blue shorts and white shirts to all whites. Inside the event hall we all stood clad in a mixture of clothing attire; yet, all of us wearing our virtual uniforms. Conversation was candid, heartfelt and overwhelmingly nostalgic. Perhaps this means more to me because it proves a notion about Kingswood that I have carried for years: that many of us once through that gate become Gentlemen of Kingswood and nothing more – nothing less. Despite our varied characteristics we hold this notion with pride and faith. Which in fact is the notion Kingswood College was founded upon: to provide an opportunity of quality education and camaraderie without the segregation of social classes. We were not patrons of the neo-colonial plantation elite, nor did we pay homage to the Buddhist elite; foundations on which two other main schools of Kandy were founded upon. We were just students of equality. Then we were Gentlemen of Kingswood.In a time where equality is trampled and toyed with in our nation, it brings a sense of relief alongside a hint of pride to see Kingswoodians carry these values.

It was far too idealistic to expect people to remain so. It was also very real that they did. It was one of the greatest pleasant surprises I have had in years. For me, the moment of the silence bell –a trinity of rings marked with resounding pauses succumbing over 4000 students into silence – the only one of its kind in the school culture of Sri Lanka – signifies a moment that stands clear and still in my memory of school life; signifying the weight of traditions that exist beyond that silvery gate with the winged sun looking down upon you.

For me that evening was full of echoes of that bell. Of friends that remain within. Thank you all for coming out.

Fide-Et-Virtute – By Fidelity and Valour.

Kingswood Pays for Its Own Mistakes. Trinity Takes It Home In Style. Fernando Blows.

With the clock catching up, Trinity pressurized the Kingswood defence which gave away in the very last (prolonged) moments of the game. Trinity touched down deep left and — for the first time for the evening — their Place Kicking Fly half skipper found his target. Trinity, thus took the game 27-24. Both teams played a well motivated and highly engaging game, though one felt that Trinity was the better team on the ground. The biggest disappointment of the day, however, was the refereeing and the weak overseeing by the men manning the lines.

Ref Pradeep Fernando following his famous encounter with a flying flower pot in 2007

Ref Pradeep Fernando following his famous encounter with a flying flower pot in 2007

The much awaited Kingswood Vs Trinity rugby encounter for 2014 ended with the tightest of finishes expectable, as the boys in three colours trumped the game 27-24. Trinity played a good game right from the beginning, staying a half a yard ahead of Kingswood till the very end of the First Half. At the short whistle, Kingswood goalled to lead 7-5. The Second Half was a game of resilience, and at one point Trinity lead 20-14. Kingswood pulled in closer with a brilliant running Try, but the conversion under the posts was fluffed by their Fly Half cum skipper. This, I felt, was a crucial miss with less than 10 minutes of play left. Minutes later, Kingswood came up through well gained ground for a second Try, to go past trinity 24-20.

Kingswood forwards seen at practice  [A Mathisha Adikaram photo used by Kingswood's FB group "KIngswood Haka". Shared here for promotional purposes. No copyright violation intended]

Kingswood forwards seen at practice
[A Mathisha Adikaram photo used by Kingswood's FB group "KIngswood Haka". Shared here for promotional purposes. No copyright violation intended]

With the clock catching up, Trinity pressurized the Kingswood defence which gave away in the very last (prolonged) moments of the game. Trinity touched down deep left and — for the first time for the evening — their Place Kicking Fly half skipper found his target. Trinity, thus took the game 27-24. Both teams played a well motivated and highly engaging game, though one felt that Trinity was the better team on the ground. The kicking, passing and line-coordination was spot on and their balance between the pack and line-play was a treat to watch. Kingswood, too, showed a good temperament with a good presence of mind and good ball handling. However, a few lapses by the Kingswoodians caused them their game: specially, their foolish and unimaginative play in defence, at crucial points was exasperating. The Number 07 and Scrum half (09) played a good game for Kingswood, while their Winger (11) played a crucial role in pulling back the game together in the Second Half. The skipper and Fly Half (10), I felt, was slow in his breaks and in passing (at times), but I was also informed that he was playing with an injury. The fluffing of the conversion at 19-20 was unpardonable. The Fullback was a major disappointment when his services were most needed; and even caused a Try which, at the end of the day, was the difference on the score board. The Fullback was slow in recovery, sloppy with clearance and weak in kicking. At crucial points, the line was static and pedestrian in passing and pushing for yards. Kingswood, however, has been playing with a few of their “impact players” down with injuries and out of the game: but, that is not an excuse for poor back-division play.

The Trinity XV [Photo shared from the Trinity website, with acknowledgement to their photographer Amila Alahakoon. Used for promotional purposes. No copyright infringement intended]

The Trinity XV [Photo shared from the Trinity website, with acknowledgement to their photographer Amila Alahakoon. Used for promotional purposes. No copyright infringement intended]

The biggest disappointment of the day, however, was the refereeing and the weak overseeing by the men manning the lines. The refereeing, in my opinion, took away the glamour from a well contested game and even may have affected what would have been a Kingswood victory. In the first 15 minutes itself, Trinity made at least 4 infringements (as seen / perceived from the stand), but none of these were penalized. These included a blatant knock on in Kingswood territory. In another instance, Kingswood was penalized for a forward pass, where it was even clear to the stands that there was a hint of a forward arc in the ball being passed, due to the heavy breeze at the time. The Trinity line being off side was not spotted a single time — and this was a repeated offense all evening — by the referee Pradeep “Mal Pochchi” Fernando or by the assistants to Fernando, Messers Madugalle and Gamini. There were several disappointing calls for scrums, two of them at the very end, deep in Kingswood territory and to Trinity’s advantage. Referee Fernando, in particular, was a shocker, and should spend a sleepless night if he has any conscience or a sense of guilt. In fact, at one point I even feared a riot at the end of the game, because the Kingswood stands — the majority in the ground — were both visibly angry and devastated by Fernando’s calls for almost the entire match. In my rugby viewing-career I have never been to a match where the referee caused so much ill-feeling consistently and throughout the two halves of play.

A flower pot

A flower pot

Ref “Mal Pochchi” Fernando, for the record, has a rich “Kingswood-Trinity” past record, where his “souvenir cabinet” was enriched by a notorious flower pot that hit him on the face at the conclusion of the game at Pallekele (which Kingswood lost) in 2007. He is also collectively considered as one of the least liked (or, rather, most detested) referees at Randles’ Hill. Perhaps, this reputation is caused by a career of bad decisions given against Kingswood. Today’s game clearly adds to his glorious career. Kingswood should lodge an official complaint against these personnel and follow the necessary procedures in showing protest. Accepting a defeat is a part of the game, but, incompetency and blatant partiality to the level of “causing a decision” cannot and should not be tolerated.

Kingswood has now safely fallen off the hunt for the League Plum, with at least Trinity and Isipatana in front of them on points. But, positives should be taken from the game and Kingswood must re-build their battered fortress for the Havelock Park encounter with the potential League Champs, Patana next week. Even though they slumped to the 6th successive defeat against Trinity, Kingswood played a heartening game against all odds and was well received by the massive “home” crowd, even though this game, too, would go down in history as yet another Kingswood defeat in a game that should have easily ended as a hard fought triumph.

(A Dummy’s Guide to) The Kingswood Prologue

The Kingswood Prologue is a verse in Augustan Heroic meter, written annually to be recited at the school’s Prizegiving. This “recital”, we are told by Louis Blaze, was inspired by the prize day recitals that used to be a part in England’s Harrow School. The Prologue is written to be recited by the boy who wins the Senior (Grade 12-13) Oratory Prize each year. The first ever Prologue was written in 1895. Between 1895 and 1951, the Prologues were written by Blaze. Since Blaze’s demise, the Prologue is continued as a main — and unique — tradition, being written by a “ghost writer” and “sent” to the college, in time for the Prizegiving. There are no Prologues written between 1926-1933. Other than that, the prologue is a continued and sustained part of the Kingswood culture.

The Prologue, as mentioned earlier, is a verse written in the tradition of Augustan Heroic meter. There, of course, are a few exceptions to this rule — notably in the Prologues of the 1956 and 1964 — where different “ghost writers” have tried out “spooky” experiments; but, on the whole the original strain has been preserved and followed to this day. The Prologues by Blaze unfold as a commentary on society, the world and the school, with sharp and perceptive responses to yearly developments, both local and international. Writing at a time of colonial occupation, Blaze yet tables several critical propositions, which only shows the depth and level of commitment in this scholar cum school master.

For instance, in the Prologue of 1906 Blaze insists that Sinhala should be made the medium of instruction in schools. The Prologues between 1901 and 1914 are largely focused on growing changes in Colonial Ceylon, being perceptive to unrest, economic breakdown and the growing sense of “nationalism” across the country. Between 1920 and 1925, Blaze socializes strongly relevant commentaries on post-war Europe and its Ceylonese outpost. Blaze is equally concerned with Education, and he uses his Prologues to voice opinion on education policy, the need for reforms as well as on infrastructural issues that include teacher salaries and pension schemes.

His Prologues from the 1900s to the mid 1920s are fired with an enthusiasm and energy that looks forward to a “new age” and a “new education” — words which recur in the verses — as Blaze anticipates an independent Ceylon, coming out from a century and a half of British colonial occupation. However, from the mid 1930s, the tempo and the tone of the Prologue changes. In this period, there are several solemn and skeptical Prologues: almost as if the writer is uncertain and not-too-hopeful that the Ceylon he once anticipated would ever come to being. Blaze looks down on the rise of communalism, the debate over the “national language issue” etc: factors that creep into Ceylonese politics in the late 1930s. He also seems to be cowed by greater state involvement and regulation of education, with a politically-motivated centralized system coming into play in the 1930s.

The last Prologues written by Blaze between 1947 and 1951 are “tired Prologues”: almost as if the writer has resigned and withdrawn; as if he is merely keeping the “tradition” alive, with neither spark nor energy. We should also not forget that Blaze, by this time, was into his late 80s. He was 90 years old when he passed away, in 1951.

The post-Blaze Prologues is a mixed bag. With Kingswood passing off the hands of the Methodist Mission and being absorbed into the governmental scheme, we see many structural and atmospherical changes in the school between 1958 and the present. Some of these changes are well reflected in the Prologues, as well. For instance, the praising of politicians to the level of stooping low to sucking bum can be seen in one or two instances. Such instances are very few, to be honest, but stand out when they do occur. The Prologues of the 1950s record the uncertainty that Kingswood — as a private school — feels at a time of national change with the Bandaranaike-led “five-fold force” of 1956 bringing about a spree of nationalization schemes, which includes the nationalization of education. However, the Prologues continue to impart politically-perceptive and critically-informed opinions on many local and international issues, even in a context where Kingswood is placed under the governmental yoke.

Notably, the Prologues are very a-political and superficial in their reading of the Youth Uprise of 1971 and the JVP insurrection of 1987-89. The Prologue of 1984 makes no reference whatsoever to the anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983, while no references are made to the anti-Tamil riots in the late 1970s. A marginal reference is made to the Riot of 1958. The post-2009 after-war situation, however, is well within the Prologue Writer’s purview.

The Prologue of Kingswood has once been a much looked forward to document, for it was given publicity and circulation by the Press, while it was widely read by English reader circles. An elderly gentleman — a lawyer by profession — shared with me as to how teachers of his high school (an unspecified Colombo school), in the 1960s, used to teach Blaze’s Prologues in the classroom during English lessons. Today, the Prologue is one of the most unique of Kingswood’s relics: a yearly recital with a ritualistic significance and one with which Kingswood contributes to an evolving literary tradition. It is heard recited only by the boys, parents and dignitaries who attend the Prizegiving, alright: yet, it remains the most original contribution Kingswood has made to Ceylonese literature and culture.

Visitors from the UK

by Our Special Writer

We were at the airport on the 21st of May 2014 eagerly waiting for the arrival of our important guests Mrs. Alison Perkins, the Head Teacher of Dronfield Stonelow Junior School and her husband Mark. They were delighted to be here because of the pleasant warm weather and the friendly atmosphere.

Thursday, the 22nd was a big day for the boys of Kingswood because of our visitors from the UK. They were most graciously welcomed by the Kandyan Dancers with small children waving the Sri Lankan flag and the Union Jack on either sides of the road. A small bride and a groom were stationed at the door to welcome them highlighting the prestigious Sri Lankan culture.

10275932_10152129776546009_8732361481410837831_nThe event was named “Sri Lanka, a Prestigious Culture” which was fascinating and enthralling at the same time. It started off with a lovely welcome speech by the Secretary of the English Literary Association and proceeded to the lighting of the traditional oil lamp. Afterwards an amazing video of Sri Lanka and Kingswood College, Kandy was played as an introduction to our culture.

The attire plays a significant role in the Sri Lankan culture, therefore the children were garbed in the dresses of several ethnic groups and they described their clothing to the audience. The visitors were then able to see some photographs and paintings done by the boys of Kingswood. Another item was the woodcarving segment which was really captivating.

Food is yet another important aspect of our culture; thus, our teachers demonstrated how to make kokis and unduwel. It was fun to watch them make and eat them on the spot. I think our visitors enjoyed the sweets very much. The food corner, too, was an impressive segment of today’s event. There were food items representing all the ethnic groups and the children described each and every one of them.

At the end of the event, sharing her thoughts, Mrs. Perkins stated that it was a job well done.